Hello and welcome back Upright. I see you have continued on your merry way to try and use all sorts of philosophy to explain something and you still didn't explain where are you going with these explanations.

I'll admit that I only read the first ten pages so I apologise if I am repeating things that have already been said.

OP, are you a biologist? A geneticist? A passionate dabbler? I find having such discussions with laymen to be pointless, because they don't know all the facts, and neither do I. The people who do this for a living, have doctorates, have published papers, understand this better than us.

I can imagine if I walked into a conversation about statistical machine translation vs rule-based machine translation, right? And heard one side adamantly arguing that rule-based machine translation has to yield better results, because statistical machine translation just doesn't make as much sense, and the reviewers who say otherwise must be biased, as must be all the evaluation metrics we use. What would I do? Possibly kill myself face-palming.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you have evidence that proves ID, write a paper, get it peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel Prize. Don't argue with laymen on the Internet.

Smoosh, he is a philosopher. You all use more philosophy to talk to him, so you all fail in your attempts. What you need to do is ask the simple question and demand only a simple answer made out of a few word. That way his weapon is malfunctioning and you have a chance to show him in his true light. But since he is very good in the field of philosophy, this is going to be hard, because he just refuses to play by my rules/questions. This can also be used against him, as he is therefor unable to have a normal conversation.

Am I right? There is only one way to disprove me. Answer my questions in a way I have asked.

I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.-Hunter S. Thompson

(14-09-2012 07:47 AM)houseofcantor Wrote: Perhaps I'm just dumb, but this looks like a map of the world situation. Of course, the best map of the world, is the world, but it looks like UB is saying that the world cannot be the world.

Fucking philosophers.

And it also seems like yer putting the conclusion before the observation.

(14-09-2012 07:47 AM)houseofcantor Wrote: Perhaps I'm just dumb, but this looks like a map of the world situation. Of course, the best map of the world, is the world, but it looks like UB is saying that the world cannot be the world.

Fucking philosophers.

And it also seems like yer putting the conclusion before the observation.

Professor Emeritus Howard Pattee disagrees with you

And his ideas are pretty flaky. Biosemiotics is woo. There are no symbols in biological molecules, they are just molecules.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.